The central legal point established in the judgment is that the mere execution of an agreement to sell does not ipso facto terminate the landlord-tenant relationship, and the tenant's status as a tenant remains until the agreement to sell is enforced in law.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.02.2023 vide which provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller, Hansi.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Act’) seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a house situated in Hansi, District Hisar. The grounds of eviction were non-payment of rent, diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted premises and personal necessity of the elder son of the respondent-landlord. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant, a stand was taken that an agreement to sell had been executed by the respondent-landlord in favour of the petitioner-tenant and that he had paid the entire sale consideration and had also filed a civil suit for specific performance as a result of which the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end. On merits also, the petition was resisted.

3. Before the Rent Controller, when the issue of assessment of provisional rent arose, a stand was taken by the petitioner-tenant that since the relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied, the provisional rent was not required to be assessed. This plea was, however, negated by the Rent Controller, Hansi and in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and Others vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others, 2002 (2) PLR 370, provisional rent was assessed leading to the filing of the present revision petition by the petitioner-tenant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-tenant has strenuously urged that the Rent Controller erred in assessing the provisional rent despite the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied by the petitioner-tenant. Much emphasis has been laid upon the point that the entire sale consideration stands paid to the respondent-landlord and a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell has also been filed. Learned counsel has referred to the written statement (Annexure P-1) and has pointed out the specific portions of the written statement wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this High Court in CR-4295-2000 titled as Devinder Singh Puri vs. B.N. Rampal, 2004 (3) PLR 591 [CR-5850-2006] and M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Kundan Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 182 [CR-1117-2003] and Ramanand Shastri vs. Gian Singh, 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 735.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-landlord has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Rent Controller, Hansi and that the assessment of provisional rent was done strictly in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant was in fact admitted and only a false stand of an alleged agreement to sell having been executed was taken. Learned counsel has submitted that the suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner-tenant after the filing of the eviction petition by the respondent-landlord. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order is legal and valid and does not call for any interference in Revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8384-8386 of 2017 titled as Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Another vs. M/s Industrial Trade Links and Others, 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 794 and the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this High Court in [CR-3137-1981] titled as Smt. Joginder Kaur vs. Hindu Undivided Family of Kidar Narth and Son, [CR-3302-2006] titled as M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Kundan Steels Pvt. Ltd. 200